The Senate is meant to represent the STATES equally, the House of Representatives is meant to represent the population equally.
Obama to hold press conference at White House on Friday
- Thread starter Geist-
- Start date
- Status
The Senate is meant to represent the STATES equally, the House of Representatives is meant to represent the population equally.
Galactic Barret
Member
What kills me the most about the EC is, if you were to move to a more progressive state as a progressive yourself, you are basically hurting your party's chances of winning. If I were to move to California from where I just moved to (NC), I hurt the chance of NC flipping Blue but Cali is already going to be blue anyway, so I made negative change for my political choice.
Is the only way to combat the EC to move to swing states that lean opposite of your political affiliation, en masse, in an effort to flip them? That seems counter-intuitive. Why should we be countering the EC, anyway? What is it useful for?
Is the only way to combat the EC to move to swing states that lean opposite of your political affiliation, en masse, in an effort to flip them? That seems counter-intuitive. Why should we be countering the EC, anyway? What is it useful for?
Laevateinn
Member
Your evidence free assertion that majority rule can quickly get out of control doesn't hold up well to the reality of minority rule getting out of control that we face today.
The fact that the electors of a state are all going to the winner of the state and not allocated proportionally makes the whole discussion about better representation of some smaller areas ridiculously hilarious. A huge bunch of votes from all the states are practically ignored.
It's one of the least democratic ways to elect a president in terms of representation.
It's one of the least democratic ways to elect a president in terms of representation.
By your own logic popular vote should encourage extremely high turnout in lower pop states to maximize their impact on the election.
Lower turnout in low pop states makes no sense, unless people just want to be stupid.
Republican candidates can win the popular vote just like democrats can win the EC. Bush won it fair and square in 2004.
A more populated area shouldn't have overwhelming say for a less populated area on the other side of the country. That's why we have states, and representation for each of those states. So the people who live in Montana can have say about what happens in Montana and the people in New York City can have say with what happens in NYC.
It doesn't. Checks and balances, Congress, and State power should though. Trump can't force states to regress on equality rights, he can't force states to end affordable healthcare. The states have the right to do anything that doesn't impede on The Bill of Rights.
They're no being held hostage. New York, California are still liberal states that are going to expand on their progressive views and laws. At a National level Trump is the result of the DNC failing to recognize that the entire country deserves a voice, not just the most populous cities and districts. Both candidates have historically low approval ratings, and the idea that either of these 2 could become nominees is the outrageous part of this entire election cycle.
Imperfected
Member
If you were to say that someone's vote should count more on the basis of how much money they have, or how much better their education is, or how tall they are, people would be up in arms about how you're undermining the very founding principles of American democracy ("... that all men are created equal...").
Say the vote of someone from California should count for less and Republicans are only too happy to say, "Well, of course, they shouldn't tell Montana what to do."
Say the vote of someone from California should count for less and Republicans are only too happy to say, "Well, of course, they shouldn't tell Montana what to do."
Psychoward
Banned
Bingo. In theory it was created to protect against dumbfucks voting in someone dangerous. In reality it fostered it. How anyone can still argue the EC is working as intended is beyond me.
DragonSworne
Banned
Democrats don't live in small abandoned bankrupt states so the EC will never favor Democrats, ever.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
White supremacy is not becoming more prevalent in the states with big economies and big populations.
PatThePassive
Member
But their maximum impact will still be 1/38 of California what you said solves nothing
In the popular vote we will see campaigning and the issues of like 4 states as the focus of every election.
Never said the popular vote could go either way just that it doesn't give smaller states representation. Which was why the EC exists.
Still waiting for a realistic response from these complaints, please what could he do besides condemn Russia and maybe economic sanctions later?
Picture the crazy results of a popularity contest with the popular vote, that's how you get Kim Kardashian as the POTUS
Crayon
Member
I am still beside myself.
ultratruman
Banned
My favourite part is when he says 'Russia can't change us'.
DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT
.....do you really believe he used those same words?
eyeball_kid
Member
It's only because we've treated it until recently as a vestige of early America, a weird thing that no one really understood, and something to reward political allies with electorship positions. Because we've never really had the threat of a tyrant and fascist before, we never really treated it as the check on bad public decisions that it was designed to be.
So the EC still has the ability to work as intended, it's just us that have not been using it as intended.
Crayon
Member
He could have done it with some balls.
Less "republicans became more favorable of Putin now.... Just think about that"
More "and if you like Putin because he helped your guy, you are a everything wrong with this nation and the lowest among us"
Democrats do have anger and it is justified and Obama's refusal to tap it as a force is a failure. The fact that Reagan must be rolling in his grave is considered some kind of hot fire tells the tale. He should have opened with that and poured it on from there.
Imperfected
Member
Rhode Island is not a person. Rhode Island is a state. Rhode Island, the state, having 1/38th as much impact on a presidential election as California is fine. There is nothing wrong with that.
The people who live in Rhode Island would have 1-to-1 value for their vote versus the vote of a person in California, which is the important thing. I don't know why you're obsessing about the value of "Rhode Island" as a singular having a vote in some bizarre "corporations are people, too" sense.
Most state divisions are bordering on arbitrary in this day and age due to transportation and telecommunications being vastly beyond the level they were at when the state lines were drawn. There is nothing inherently important or valuable to "Rhode Island" as a political entity, the important thing is the people who live within Rhode Island's borders, whose vote would could equal to anyone else's in a popular vote.
And Rhode Island is a terrible example anyway. No one gives a shit about Rhode Island's pittance of electoral votes when there's Ohio or Florida up for grabs every election, so it doesn't even benefit from this garbage arrangement. The states that benefit most from the EC aren't even the smallest ones, they're the ones that have the unique combination of size and divisiveness. It's basically a system that rewards states for lacking internal solidarity, which I'm going to guess was never anyone's plan.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Because having an orange neo-nazi fascist is SOooooooOOOooooOoo much better.
PatThePassive
Member
So when condeming Russia he should have liked grabed his crotch more often or flexed to the camera.
Anger does not equal power and makes the person look weak.
There is something wrong with that
So because a smaller states people's votes are 1 to 1 of California they should be ok if they are negatively effected (If the state is effected) by the election of a POTUS in the popular vote.
Sure we are all connected by the web but our local and state policy, economics, etc still effect individuals.
Not saying the EC is perfect but better then the popular vote.
PatThePassive
Member
My bad meant to copy and add to the post above
ultratruman
Banned
I don't understand this focus on the electoral college as being the issue. Both sides knew the rules of the game, Hillary should've reinforced that blue wall.
Crayon
Member
I'll take this as a signal that you are not genuinely interested in discussing this.
PatThePassive
Member
First line was a joke.
If you want passion in politics look up the brawls in the Russian parliament?
Milkncooke
Member
No it isn't. A system where all of a states electoral votes go to a candidate that got less than 50% of that state's votes does not accurately reflect the voting populace of that state or the country. Even if a candidate won a state with 70% of the vote there's still 30% of voters in that state whose votes essentially didn't count. That is not a good system. A system that devalues votes can never be better than a system that treats all votes equally.
Imperfected
Member
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. What is your point?
That it's okay for California to be negatively effected by the election of a POTUS who is actively trying to harm that state (sanctuary city legislation) even though they don't get 1-to-1 value for their votes, because fuck those guys? Because more people live there, so they deserve to be harmed by your calculus of this situation, somehow?
And again, the electoral college system is not benefiting small states. No one ran on the issues in North Dakota, Wyoming, and Rhode Island. They're too small and too red to be worth anyone's time on either side of the aisle. They ran on the issues in Florida, Ohio, and Michigan, states that are not particularly small or under-represented in any way, because they happen to fall in that particular band of being indecisive enough to potentially influence.
And this is ignoring the fact that the moment Texas comes into contention as a swing state, suddenly every other swing state becomes practically insignificant. If California ever went up for grabs, the issues in Ohio wouldn't even amount to a thimble full of piss to the presidential candidates anymore. The system is not designed for, or in any particular way good at protecting the interests of "small" states. That it even remotely does so is an unintended consequence that is not guaranteed by its function.
I mean, seriously, what a great system. Any state large or small that actually has reasonable certainty of what is best for its people is largely ignored, and we only listen to issues from the states where people can't really make up their minds or just don't really even have a strong opinion. Swell.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
I've got complicated feelings about the election system.
The president should represent the entire country, and I don't think that leaving rural America behind in the dust of the major population centers is good or right.
However, if they are just going to vote against their own interests and the wellbeing of the country out of ignorance, then maybe it is better to give the rest of America the wheel, since they will probably be better off.
But that sounds like some tyrannical Big Brother shit, so I don't know.
The president should represent the entire country, and I don't think that leaving rural America behind in the dust of the major population centers is good or right.
However, if they are just going to vote against their own interests and the wellbeing of the country out of ignorance, then maybe it is better to give the rest of America the wheel, since they will probably be better off.
But that sounds like some tyrannical Big Brother shit, so I don't know.
Is there a diplomatic way of saying "you're a lame duck President who won't do shit"? We'd better ask Vladimir the Terrible I guess.
radios shipping overview
Member
I thought more people knew the phrase Mele Kalikimaka. You folks never even heard the song?
Psychoward
Banned
Is this the only nonsense argument you have against a popular vote? They'd still need to go through the primaries and actually get enough votes to win. In theory the electoral college would stop someone from Kim K getting the presidency by voting against her as a last resort. In practice that doesn't happen, so the electoral college might as well go and have every vote be equal.
True Savior
Member
wrong thread.
Simpsons reference. When Lisa becomes President in Bart to the Future, she's told that every President has 3 secret murders.
"Come on, every president gets three secret murders. If you don't use them by the end of the term, then pfft, they're gone."
"Bad Putin! Bad people! I'm not bothered to do anything anymore. it's on Trump."
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
Obama went down a list of facets in which the country improved since he became president, One last "you fucked up" for the road.
Oh.
Well that's disappointing, best of luck America!
He probably listed off ways the country had improved so you guys can tick them off as they get reversed
That's why we have the House of Reresentatives which is based on population.
I think the debate going on here has valid concerns on both sides, but honestly, no system will work properly if it's only working at 54%. It's also been pointed out how anemic Democratic turnout is for mid-term and local elections, which has a much greater impact on our day to day.
Personally I would like to see term limits on Congressional posts and legally mandated voting before changing the EC.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Yeah but that doesn't make what I replied to a good argument. It wasn't the issue that new york isn't heard as is said but that the EC is disproportionate and citing another disproportional institution made no sense.
You already have the senate and the house of representatives so why does the EC also need to be disproportionate to such an extent?
Because at the time the country was taking shape, the founders knew that history had shown that pure democracies typically were shitshows, but a pure republic like Greece/Rome where the most wealthy or largest landowners represented were practically oligarchies, so they tried to strike a balance between the two.
I'm inclined to agree that the EC is wonky, but not because of the system itself, but rather due to piss poor voter turnout. It's hard to evaluate the efficacy of something when 46% of it is non-functional.
TelemachusD
Member
The reason the EC exists has nothing to do with citizens voting. No person in the US has a right to vote for president. State legislatures may chose electors for their state by any method. In South Carolina, electors were directly chosen by the legislature up until the Civil War. Senators used to be selected by legislatures as well, until the 17th amendment.
Another thing to consider, thanks to the 26th amendment states can't block voting due to age of anyone 18 or over. But there's nothing that says they can't grant suffrage to people younger than 18. There's nothing stopping California from lowering the voting age to 15 and gaining one million new voters. Indeed this was the case during the fight for women's suffrage, prior to the 19th amendment some states had full suffrage for women while others had little to none. The former had many more voters per capita than the latter.
For a more current example, it was estimated that in 2012 5.85 million felons were restricted from voting, but states have various laws on this. Vermont lets felons vote from prison while other states may bar a felon for life for certain crimes or make it take many years to get voting rights restored.
If states have wildly different voting laws it makes comparing raw cumulative vote totals much harder. If the president is to be chosen by national popular vote, the US needs nationally standardized voting laws. This would of course require a constitutional amendment. There is however nothing stopping states from awarding electors in a less stupid manner than winner take all. But changing this is hard thanks to our first past the post two party country. No party in charge of a state wants to give the other side even a slight advantage, just look at the shit going on in North Carolina right now.
Another thing to consider, thanks to the 26th amendment states can't block voting due to age of anyone 18 or over. But there's nothing that says they can't grant suffrage to people younger than 18. There's nothing stopping California from lowering the voting age to 15 and gaining one million new voters. Indeed this was the case during the fight for women's suffrage, prior to the 19th amendment some states had full suffrage for women while others had little to none. The former had many more voters per capita than the latter.
For a more current example, it was estimated that in 2012 5.85 million felons were restricted from voting, but states have various laws on this. Vermont lets felons vote from prison while other states may bar a felon for life for certain crimes or make it take many years to get voting rights restored.
If states have wildly different voting laws it makes comparing raw cumulative vote totals much harder. If the president is to be chosen by national popular vote, the US needs nationally standardized voting laws. This would of course require a constitutional amendment. There is however nothing stopping states from awarding electors in a less stupid manner than winner take all. But changing this is hard thanks to our first past the post two party country. No party in charge of a state wants to give the other side even a slight advantage, just look at the shit going on in North Carolina right now.
Rural America is massively over represented in the American system; due to the way the Senate works, the House of Representatives cap from 1911 and the Electoral College based on the number of Representatives and Senators.
Every vote should be of equal worth in a fair electoral system, that's why the EC is complete garbage and should be abolished.
Living closer together doesn't mean your voice should matter less, that doesn't make any sense.
And yet here we are? Kim Kardashian is just as qualified for the office as Trump. That's fucking sad. You're right, I don't want her as the President. I don't want him as the president either. The only difference is he's a racist sexist xenophobe, and she has a sex tape.
Dude Abides
Banned
iTT people defend an institution designed to preserve white supremacy.
Muppet of a Man
Member
When real history is lost, people are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Why do you think evangelical conservatives want to rewrite the text books (see Texas Board of Education trying to exert influence over text book publishers)?
I have yet to see any even slightly convincing argument as to why people living in urban centers should be systematically discriminated against and disenfranchised by making their vote worth a fraction of a rural vote. All this concern over "protecting the minority" but complete dismissal of all the urban voters who are completely fucked over and stripped of equal representation. The irony is that this "minority" of rural voters, who are given disproportionate power and representation under the system, are largely a racial majority that use their disproportionate power, in part, to oppress actual racial minorities in the urban centers.
And this is coming from a white male rural Midwesterner. There's no excuse for the EC. It's a relic from a time where people also didn't see dissonance between democracy and maintaining slavery.
Edit: IMO this defense of it partly goes back to our country's efforts to deify the Founders and their motives, and white wash our history.
And this is coming from a white male rural Midwesterner. There's no excuse for the EC. It's a relic from a time where people also didn't see dissonance between democracy and maintaining slavery.
Edit: IMO this defense of it partly goes back to our country's efforts to deify the Founders and their motives, and white wash our history.
Again, that isn't why the EC exists, and no one is campaigning on the interests of smaller states, so it doesn't even do that. It just forces campaigning in larger swing states. If we do not disband the EC all we're waiting in is TX to go blue, and it eventually will, and then essentially NY, TX, and CA will decide the election.
It doesn't protect the interests of smaller states it's just that rural smaller states tend to go red so that's why people want to defend it. Once those states truly are inconsequential because TX is going blue republicans will be pushing for a popular vote or at least splitting all the states EC votes based on popular vote in each state.
Republicans aren't being honest about why they want to keep the EC. It's because they know it helps them win as evidenced by 2000 and 2016.
- Status